Reading mode: Light Dark

Can you check if a JPEG has been post-processed or if it is out-of-camera?

Go to last post
GPSMapNut said:
For few years now, I enter into "One Day In The Life Of Burlington"
photo competition. It's a contest that takes place over a 24 hr
period. A day before, film shooters get a marked 36 roll and
digital shooters get their cards checked and marked. The cards (and
film) have to be returned the day after the competition and, the
first 40 consecutive shots get printed on 4X6 (deleted file counts
as a shot) and from these contestant can choose up to 2 images that
they enter into the competition. These are printed on 10" paper and
judged. Film, digital, SLR, dSLR, P&S, compact, whatever, side by
side all what counts is the skill of the photographer. It's lots of
fun. Anyway; I do believe that beside brains, some sort of
authentication software is used to make sure that the files were
not altered but, I never enquired aout the details - they don't
really matter to me - the rules are for the honest people so, I
play by the rules.

--
Andrew Kalinowski
Photography: http://www.FotoCanada.ca
Maps http://www.topocanada.com
GPS and mapping: http://www.GPSNuts.com Recreational
Click to expand...
Wow that competition sounds SUPER fun and interesting! I googled it but couldn't find a link, do you have one?

Thanks.

--

deivID
http://deividmx.deviantart.com
 
Dave,

I agree with you. I very much enjoy the post processing step in digital photography - but then in my film days I also used to enjoy the darkroom side of things (almost as much as the actual picture taking). The two are the same thing, it's just easier with a computer. Not cheating but part of the creative process.

David
 
It would be like having a film photo contest where you could only enter your negatives.

I can see why someone wants to organise a contest like this, and there are a lot of folk out there who think post processing indicates some kind of failing, but for me, this sport is all about images and not processes. If its a good shot I don't care how it was achieved.

So will the winner be the person who knows how to set up a camera better than the next, the person who knows what kind of image best suits their compromised settings, or the person who takes the best photos? That isn't to say that the winner may well be all three of these.

I wouldn't worry too much. Photography contest judges invariably seem to select the winner by picking numbers out of a hat, I see few where my choice won.
 
I agree with Andrew. I'm a jpeg shooter without post processing my images. I can understand, however, that in emergency cases post processing can save some bad images but I have not enough skills and time to even consider post processing my images. Post processing is another kind of art (more like painting) which some people master extremely well, but I'm just more a photographer.

Whenever I can I take a look at the exif data to learn from the images and try to see whether or not they are post processed. When I see the software Adobe Photoshop notion in the data it's likely the images are post processed. But it's quite difficult to find real unprocessed images.

Luc
--
http://lucdejaeger.smugmug.com/
 
And the private keys in the camera would have to be inside a tamper resistant chip and which could not be extracted and used in another device.
 
But you're just not getting the point about image files from DSLR's. The greatest potential from DSLR's is with fairly neutral images that can be tuned to their greatest potential in post processing. Point and shoot cameras are definitely aimed toward those who don't do any post processing. The contrast, saturation, and sharpening are pushed so that "finished" files are downloaded to the computer. Those are the default settings in those cameras. Not so with DSR's. Most of our cameras produce fairly flat results that can be manipulated to whatever end the photographer desires. It is not cheating it is part of the photographic process, just as film developing and printing had its fine tuning too.

Even with point and shoot cameras any resizing of the image is going to require sharpening to restore its crisp edges. Don't you resize or crop or both. Don't you sharpen after those steps. If you don't you are short changing yourself. Haven't you ever had a shot that benefited from some contrast pushing, maybe a little tweaking so the blue sky is blue rather than aqua or purple. Maybe some color tweaking to compensate for a little bit of errant white balance with indoor tungsten light pictures. Surely you have investigated these things. If you have a DSLR you owe it to yourself to investigate. All that and much more is post processing.

I've had Photoshop since 3.0 and don't see how any of us could get by without it or something similar.

dave
GPSMapNut said:
GPSMapNut said:
Even film is 'post processed', color corrected at the lab where
film is processed. And, if one has his/her own darkroom, one can
'burn, didge' to his/her hearts content.
Click to expand...
Ahm, actualy film does not get "post processed". It gets,
processed. For slide film, processing is normally end of the road.
For negative, it (again) can be simply processed into prints or it
may be manipulated = post processed. Just like a raw file can be
processed into a JPG or it can be edited (post processed). The
option is up to the photographer.

Andrew Kalinowski
Photography: http://www.FotoCanada.ca
Maps http://www.topocanada.com
GPS and mapping: http://www.GPSNuts.com Recreational
Click to expand...
--
Dave Lewis
 
Nikon has something called Image Authentication that is supposed to be for law enforcement etc. to verify that an image hasn't been modified. As I'm interested in modifying my images not trying to keep them from being modified I haven't looked at how this is supposed to work.

I don't think it would be any good for this contest anyway unless the judges made everyone use Nikon gear. Of course this contest is picky enough that might be what they do.
 
It would still be possible to take a picture of a synthesized photo.

Maybe there's some techniques to detect that something is a picture of a picture, but what happens if the actual subject is a picture?
 
linear said:
It would still be possible to take a picture of a synthesized photo.
Maybe there's some techniques to detect that something is a picture
of a picture, but what happens if the actual subject is a picture?
Click to expand...
If they can pull this off so you can't tell then they deserve to win. Taking a picture of a picture is a photographic art in itself.
 
Dave Lewis said:
But you're just not getting the point about image files from
DSLR's. The greatest potential from DSLR's is with fairly neutral
images that can be tuned to their greatest potential in post
processing.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that it's you who is not getting the point. Not everybody got a dSLR because RAW are better suited for PPing.
Member said:
Point and shoot cameras are definitely aimed toward
those who don't do any post processing. The contrast, saturation,
and sharpening are pushed so that "finished" files are downloaded
to the computer. Those are the default settings in those cameras.
Not so with DSR's. Most of our cameras produce fairly flat results
that can be manipulated to whatever end the photographer desires.
Click to expand...
Well, if you get to know your camera well, you will find how to set it so the results are not so flat. Again, it's everybody's choice how to approach the whole thing.
Member said:
It is not cheating it is part of the photographic process, just as
film developing and printing had its fine tuning too.
Click to expand...
That depends on the circumstances. In a contest where "no edits" rules are set, it would clearly be cheating. In other situations it is just what you want to do.
Member said:
Even with point and shoot cameras any resizing of the image is
going to require sharpening to restore its crisp edges. Don't you
resize or crop or both. Don't you sharpen after those steps. If you
don't you are short changing yourself. Haven't you ever had a shot
that benefited from some contrast pushing, maybe a little tweaking
so the blue sky is blue rather than aqua or purple. Maybe some
color tweaking to compensate for a little bit of errant white
balance with indoor tungsten light pictures. Surely you have
investigated these things. If you have a DSLR you owe it to
yourself to investigate. All that and much more is post processing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's usual the point in the discussion where I am not too sure if I should laugh, cry or just bang my head against the wall...

anyway; No, I am not "short changing" myself. I do know how to PP. I crop and resize and sharpen for the print or post. I routinely use in camera curves and that's how far I normally go with it. Yes, I do know how to do much more and occasionally do much more. Still, I aim for the best out of the box results. I tweak the settings, use optical filters, try to pay attention to light and composition so, at the end of the day, with few exceptions, if I don't like what I get straight out of the box, it goes to the garbage bin.

So, yes, I use editing to save an occasional image but, it's not what I normally do nor what I enjoy doing.
Bottom line:

It's fine with me when people use editing to extend their photo abilities but, I don't agree when people use it as a replacement for such.
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
snip> > > > > > > > >
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andrew Kalinowski
Photography: http://www.FotoCanada.ca
Maps http://www.topocanada.com
GPS and mapping: http://www.GPSNuts.com Recreational
 
I'm fine with your approach, but don't assume folks who do post processing all shoot in raw. I never shoot in raw because I shoot so many shots that the file size overload would quite simply overwhelm me. JPG files need lots of help to get the best out of them. I think you know that and are just unwilling to admit it. Sure, I know you can push contrast and saturation and sharpening to approximate what you can do in post processing but you are stuck with what you get when you let the camera do it. Let a good editor do its thing and you can experiment and add and subtract and go back to nothing at all if you like. Once the camera has saved the file with pushed sharpening and contrast you are stuck with the blown highlights and the lack of shadow detail you could have salvaged if you had shot it neutral and left the touchup work for later where you could change your mind.

Dave Lewis
 
Dave Lewis said:
I'm fine with your approach, but don't assume folks who do post
processing all shoot in raw.
Click to expand...
I don't think that I made such assumption. Having said that, I'm surprised by your statement
Member said:
I never shoot in raw
Click to expand...
After all, it was you who wrote:

"The greatest potential from DSLRs is with fairly neutral images that can be tuned to their greatest potential in post processing." Well, I would think that since RAW has more potential for PPing, it would be what you shoot.
Member said:
because I shoot
so many shots that the file size overload would quite simply
overwhelm me.
Click to expand...
Ouch! So, after all the lecture, quantity over quality???? Anyway; I have a news for you. It's called batch processing. Hardly overwhelming unless you need prints for your customers right away but than, you wouldn't be doing post processing and would want the best effect straight out of the box, wouldn't you?
Member said:
JPG files need lots of help to get the best out of them. I think you
know that and are just unwilling to admit it.
Click to expand...
Not willing to admit what??? Oh man, talk about wrong assumptions! I normally shoot RAW because I know very well that RAW processed into JPG yields higher quality than a camera generated JPG. You can check EXIF in the images I post and you will see that I hardly ever use in camera JPG.
Member said:
Sure, I know you can push contrast and saturation and sharpening to
approximate what you can do in post processing but you are stuck
with what you get when you let the camera do it. Let a good editor
do its thing and you can experiment and add and subtract and go
back to nothing at all if you like. Once the camera has saved the
file with pushed sharpening and contrast you are stuck with the
blown highlights and the lack of shadow detail you could have
salvaged if you had shot it neutral and left the touchup work for
later where you could change your mind.
Click to expand...
Have a news for you; any time you shoot in camera JPG, you discard a whole bunch of data that could be useful for PPing. I find it really hilarious that you are such a strong advocate of PPing yet you shoot JPG and I who advocates getting it right at the time of shooting, leaves myself an option to post process from the most data possible!
Member said:
Dave Lewis
Click to expand...
--
Andrew Kalinowski
Photography: http://www.FotoCanada.ca
Maps http://www.topocanada.com
GPS and mapping: http://www.GPSNuts.com Recreational
 
deivID said:
GPSMapNut said:
See
http://www.latow.com/

and below is one that got me HM last year. Except for resizing,
straight from the camera. I wonder if anybody can seee any need for
PPing that one...
Click to expand...
The pictures are so great, I would like to participate in that
thing once, just for fun.

--

deivID
http://deividmx.deviantart.com
Click to expand...
Frankly, IMHO, except for few shots, the ones presented under the link do not give the justice to the level of entries. One has to see the display first hand to really appreciate it. Let me put it this way; I thought that (this year) my two entries were not great but they were not too bad either. When I looked over the display before the winners were announced, I knew that I stand a chance of a snowball in hell toi even get an HM!

For anybody who is not too far from Burlington, Ontario, it may be worth a visit to the Burlington Art Centre where all the entries are on display till the end of December.

--
Andrew Kalinowski
Photography: http://www.FotoCanada.ca
Maps http://www.topocanada.com
GPS and mapping: http://www.GPSNuts.com Recreational
 
You have totally lost me now. You shoot raw and yet don't post process. Why in the world do you shoot raw, then. Batch processing is your rationalization. Look at reviews and comparison shots and tell me that a batch processed raw file to JPG is in any noticeable way different than one processed to a jpg in the camera. Yet you do that and don't even take the next logical step and do a little white balance correction, some contrast tweaking, maybe some saturation changes. Gosh you surely resize, yet you don't do sharpening after you resize.

Raw vs JPG has been debated to death in these forums. The concensus with most folks who aren't obsessive about it, seems to be that raw holds advantages for problem images. Reasonably good exposures and balanced colors do just as well in post processing as raw files do. When you are printing to normal sizes like I do for my journal, raw files are tremendous over kill. If all the images I have shot over the last six years were raw files, I would have filled a stack of hard drives with them. Just this summer I shot 13 gigs of jpg files. Can you imagine how much space they would take up if they were raw files. I'm not being defensive, just practical.
--
Dave Lewis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top